'J-r^flA 


L,W,  Munhall 


The  Integrity  and 
Authority  of 
the  Bible 


Sa 


i 


f^^ 


^3  ^  o  W artidcl  Library 


The   Integrity  and   Authority   o] 
the  Bible. 


BY  L.   \V.    MUNHALL,   M.A.,   D.D.    (EVANGELIST),   PHILADELPHIA. 


Read   before   the    New    York    City    Methodist    Preachers'     Meeting, 
Monday,  April  17th,  1 899. 


No  sensible  person  will  object  to  any  devout  and 
honest  effort  to  ascertain  the  dates  and  determine  the 
authorship — humanly  speaking — of  the  various  books 
composing  the  Bible,  and  the  exact  text  of  the  sacred 
writings.     We,   who   call   ourselves   orthodox   Chris- 
tians, are  not  afraid  of  the  light:  we  welcome  the  freest 
and  fullest  investigation  of  the  foundations  of  our  faith, 
and  most  critical  examination  of  our  text  book.     But 
we  insist  that  the  examination  and  criticisms   shall 
be  made  by  competent  persons;  and  that,  before  we 
will  abandon  the  views  and  faith  held  by  the  historic 
Church  for  eighteen  centuries;  we  must  have,  not  con- 
jectures, presuppositions  and  bold  unprovable  assump- 
tions,   but    demonstrable    facts.     And    since    God's 
thoughts  and  ways  are  as  much  above  man's  as  the 
heaven  is  above  the  earth,  we  insist,  as  is  certainly 
our  right,  that  something  more  than  familiarity  with 
oriental  languages  and  literature  is  necessary  to  qualify 
one  for  this  work.     Paul  says,  ''Which  things  also  we 
speak,  not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth, 
but  which  the  Spirit    teacheth;  comparing    spiritual 
things  with  spiritual.     Now  the  natural  man  receiveth 
not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God:  for  they  are  fool- 

I 


ishness  unto  him;  and  he  cannot  know  them,  because 
they  are  spiritually  judged,"  i  Cor.  ii:  13,  14. 

We  also  insist  that  there  were  intellectual  giants 
and  competent  scholars  in  the  Church  in  former  times, 
who  should  not  be  ignored;  and  whose  work  in  the 
field  of  biblical  and  textual  criticism  is  not  to  be  looked 
upon  with  contempt. 

How  stands  the  case?  The  integrity  and  authority 
of  the  Bible  have  been  challenged  from  the  completion 
of  the  canon.  Its  claims,  its  revelations  and  demands 
are  absolutely  unique,  running  across  the  currents  of 
human  thought  and  desire;  and  therefore  discredited 
and  rejected  by  the  natural  man,  "For  the  mind  of  the 
flesh  is  enmity  against  God."  The  Church,  from  the 
times  of  Celsus  and  Porphyry,  has  easily  withstood 
the  assaults  of  infidelity  and  successfully  defended  the 
'Tmpregnable  rock  of  the  Scriptures."  Those  un- 
familiar with  the  history  of  this  conflict  of  the  ages, 
should  know  that  not  one  single  objection  raised 
against  the  integrity  and  trustworthiness  of  the  Bible 
by  the  modern  higher  critic,  is  original  with  him. 
Speaking  of  the  work  of  the  modern  higher  critics, 
the  late  Lord  Beaconsfield,  in  addressing  a  diocesan 
convention  at  Oxford,  said,  'T  find  the  common  char- 
acteristic of  their  writings  is  this:  that  their  learning 
is  always  second-hand.  .  .  .  When  I  examine  the 
writings  of  their  masters,  the  great  scholars  of  Ger- 
many, I  find  that  in  their  labors  also  there  is  nothing 
new.  All  that  inexorable  logic,  irresistible  rhetoric,  and 
bewildering  wit,  could  avail  to  popularize  these  views 
was  set  in  motion  to  impress  the  new  learning  on  the 
minds  of  the  two  leading  nations  of  Europe,  by  the 
English  and  French  deistical  writers  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, and  they  produced  their  effect  in  the  French 
Revolution."     Nearly  every  objection  raised  against 


the  integrity  of  the  Bible  by  the  present-day  higher 
critics  can  be  found  in  Volume  VI,  Didot  Edition  of 
Voltaire's  works  and  Payne's  ''Age  of  Reason."  See 
chapter  sixteen,  Highest  Critics  vs.  Higher  Critics, 
published  by  Eaton  &  Mains,  150  Fifth  Avenue,  New 
York  City.  The  plan  of  the  battle  has  changed.  The 
enemy  used  to  be  outside  the  breastworks:  he  is  now 
inside — in  our  pulpits,  in  our  educational  institutions 
and  editorial  chairs;  but  it  is  the  same  battle,  and  the 
weapons  used  against  the  book  are  the  very  same  the 
intidels  have  always  used.  The  claim,  therefore,  that 
these  criticisms  are  the  result  of  greater  light  and 
learning  than  the  Church  before  had,  is  not  true. 
That  we  have  better  light  and  more  information  on 
biblical  matters  than  fifty  or  one  hundred  years  ago, 
we  all  well  enough  know;  but  it  has  been  uniformly 
favorable  to  the  traditional  view.  Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce, 
of  Oxford,  has  recently  said:  *T  have  dealt  elsewhere 
with  the  monumental  corroboration  of  the  histories  we 
find  in  the  Pentateuch.  Here  I  have  no  space  to  do 
more  than  refer  to  them,  and  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
the  most  uncompromising  opponents  of  the  results  of 
the  higher  criticism  are  to  be  found  in  the  ranks  of 
the  foremost  students  of  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  an- 
tiquity. In  truth,  those  of  us  who  have  devoted  our 
lives  to  the  archaeology  of  the  ancient  Oriental  world 
have  been  forced  back  into  the  traditional  position, 
though  doubtless  with  a  broader  basis  to  stand  upon 
and  clearer  views  of  the  real  signification  of  the  biblical 
text.  Year  by  year,  almost  month  by  month,  fresh 
discoveries  are  breaking  in  upon  us,  each  more  marvel- 
lous than  the  last,  but  all,  as  regards  the  Pentateuch, 
in  favor  of  the  old,  rather  than  of  the  new  teaching." 

Let  me  here  call  attention  to  a  few  instances.     In 
denying  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  the 

3 


critics  proved  (?)  their  position  by  boldly  declaring 
that  the  art  of  writing  was  unknown  in  the  time  of 
Moses.  Prof.  Sayce  has  said:  "We  have  learned  not 
only  that  Moses  could  have  written  the  Pentateuch,  but 
that  it  would  have  been  something  like  a  miracle  if 
he  had  not  done  so.  We  have  long  known  that  the 
use  of  writing  for  literary  purposes  is  immensely  old 
in  both  Egypt  and  Babylonia.  Egypt  was  emphati- 
cally a  land  of  scribes  and  readers,  and  so,  too,  was 
Babylonia.  Already,  in  the  days  of  the  Old  Empire, 
the  Egyptian  hieroglyphs  had  developed  into  a  cursive 
hand,  while  the  Babylonian  cities  had  their  libraries 
of  clay  books  centuries  before  the  Bible  tells  us  that 
Abraham  was  born  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.  But  we 
now  know  a  good  deal  more  than  this.  Thanks  to  the 
discovery  of  the  cuneiform  tablets  of  Tel-el-Amarna 
in  Upper  Egypt,  we  now  know  that  in  the  century  be- 
fore the  exodus  people  were  reading  and  writing  and 
corresponding  with  one  another  throughout  the  civil- 
ized East,  from  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  to  those 
of  the  Nile.  And  this  was  not  all.  The  correspond- 
ence was  carried  on  in  the  cuneiform  characters,  and 
for  the  most  part  in  the  language  of  Babylonia,  neces- 
sitating the  existence  of  schools  where  the  foreign 
language  and  script  could  be  taught  and  learned. 
What  this  means  can  be  realized  only  by  those  who 
have  studied  the  vast  and  complicated  Babylonia  syl- 
labary, with  the  two  languages,  Semitic  and  Sumerian, 
which  a  knowledge  of  it  implies.  The  centre  of  all  this 
literary  activity  was  Canaan.  At  one  time  that  coun- 
try had  been  under  the  influence  and  domination  of 
Babylonia,  but  in  the  age  of  the  Tel-el-Amarna  letters 
it  had  become  an  Egyptian  province.  A  considerable 
number  of  the  letters  were  written  by  Canaanites,  and 
they  show  that  a. knowledge  of  reading  and  writing 

4 


must  have  been  widely  spread  throughout  the  land. 
Libraries  and  archive  chambers  existed,  like  those  of 
Babylonia,  and  editions  of  Babylonian  literary  works 
were  made  for  them.  In  fact,  Canaan,  in  the  Mosaic 
age,  like  the  countries  which  surrounded  it,  was  fully 
as  literary  as  was  Europe  in  the  time  of  Renaissance.'' 

The  archaeologists  have  now  in  their  possession 
more  than  three  hundred  letters  written  before  Moses 
was  born. 

Two  summers  ago,  at  a  meeting  of  the  International 
Archaeological  Society,  in  the  city  of  Paris,  Prof.  Shiel, 
in  speaking  of  his  Noachian  Tablet,  which  corresponds 
so  very  closely  to  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  deluge, 
called  special  and  particular  attention  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  indisputable  evidence  that  it  was  written  be- 
tween 2127  and  2147  B.  C,  or  about  six  hundred  years 
before  Moses  was  born. 

Because  "Sargon,  the  king  of  Assyria,"  mentioned 
in  Isaiah  xx:  i,  is  not  mentioned  by  any  other  ancient 
wTiter,  the  critics  insisted  that  Isaiah  is  historically 
inaccurate.  "But  the  first  Assyrian  mound  excavated 
by  Botta  proved  to  be  the  palace  of  Sargon,  and  Isaiah 
was  vindicated." 

Because  no  ancient  writer,  native  or  foreign,  has 
anything  whatever  to  say  of  Belshazzar,  the  mention 
of  him  in  the  book  of  Daniel  has  been  ridiculed  by  the 
critics,  and  cited  as  an  instance  of  the  untrustworthi- 
ness  of  the  record.  But  the  Sippara  inscription,  and 
contract  tablets  discovered  and  deciphered  by  the 
Assyriologists,  fully  vindicate  Daniel's  record. 

Because  Babylonian  names  appear  in  certain  Old 
Testament  l)ooks,  the  critics  vehemently  insist  that 
they  must  have  been  written  in  exile  or  post-exile 
times.  Prof.  Sayce  says:  ''Canaan  was  overrun  by 
Babylonian  arms  and  influence  long  before  the  age  of 

5 


Abraham.  .  .  .  Contract  tablets,  drawn  up  and  dated 
in  the  reigns  of  Eri-Akii,  or  Arioch  of  EUasar,  and  of 
other  Babylonian  kings  of  the  same  period,  contain 
Hebrew  names,  which  indicate  that  a  Hebrew-speak- 
ing population  was  settled  in  Babylon  at  the  time." 

At  the  Bonn  Vacation  Conference  four  years  ago. 
Prof.  Meinhold  declared  that  there  were  no  such  his- 
toric personages  as  the  patriarchs;  and  denied  any 
historic  situation  for  the  tabernacle,  with  its  magnifi- 
cent services  and  worship,  and  the  desert  wanderings 
of  God's  ancient  people.  A  copy  of  these  utterances 
was  sent  to  each  of  the  eight  Protestant  theological 
schools  of  Prussia,  with  the  inquiry,  "Are  such  views 
in  harmony  with  the  confessional  status  of  the  Protes- 
tant Church?"  With  the  single  exception  of  Greif- 
swald,  the  reply  was — Yes! 

Such  criticism  is  destructive  of  the  Christian's  faith 
and  hope.  If  Abraham  is  a  myth,  so  also  is  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  Bible  declares  He  is  "the  Son  of  Abra- 
ham," Matt,  i:  1-17;  and  the  Christian  religion  which 
sprang  out  of  Jewry  and  has  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
for  its  authority  that  it  is  from  God,  is  robbed  of  its 
credentials;  and  the  individual  Christian's  life  and  ex- 
perience are  unreal,  for  he  also  is  declared  to  be  a  child 
of  Abraham,  see  Gal.  iii:  6-9. 

And  now  once  again  God  vindicates  His  dishonored 
Word.  Mr.  Pinches  has  discovered  among  the  names 
of  witnesses  to  the  deeds  recorded  on  the  contract 
tablets,  the  names  of  Abram,  Jacob  (el)  and  Joseph  (el). 
So  we  now  certainly  know,  if  we  ever  doubted  it,  that 
what  the  Bible  says  concerning  the  patriarchs  being 
real  personages  is  most  surely  true. 

I  can  multiply  instances  of  a  similar  character.  On 
the  one  hand,  it  is  true  that  the  widest  learning  and 
acutest  ingenuity  skepticism  can  command,  has  failed 

6 


utterly  to  prove  demonstratively  one  single  historic 
inaccuracy  against  the  Bible;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
nearly  every  apparent  error,  discrepancy  and  contra- 
diction can  be  satisfactorily  explained  to  honest  in* 
quirers  after  the  truth,  and  from  the  record  itself. 

Take  three  or  four  cases  of  textual  criticism.  The 
late  Professor  Evans,  of  Lane  Theological  Seminary, 
and  his  associate.  Professor  Henry  Preserve  Smith, 
justified  their  contention  that  the  Bible  was  not  always 
historically  and  chronologically  trustworthy  by  calling 
attention  to  the  statement  in  Gal.  iii:  17,  "That  the 
covenant,  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ, 
the  law  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after," 
etc.,  which  they  said  was  in  error;  because  Exodus 
xii:  40,  41,  tells  us  that  they  were  in  Egypt  430  years; 
and  as  the  covenant  was  given  unto  Abraham  about 
200  years  before  the  children  of  Israel  went  down  into 
Egypt,  here  is  most  certainly  a  discrepancy.  An  or- 
dinary reader  should  not  make  the  mistake  these 
learned  professors  made.  It  is  not  said  in  Gal.  iii:  17, 
that  the  law  was  given  430  years  after  the  covenant 
w^as  entered  into  with  Abraham;  but  from  the  "con- 
firmation" of  the  covenant.  If  we  turn  to  Genesis 
xlvi:  1-3,  we  find  that  the  covenant  was  confirmed 
unto  Jacob  the  night  before  he  started  down  to  Egypt. 

In  2  .Samuel  xxiv:  24,  it  is  said,  "David  bought  the 
threshing  iloor  and  the  oxen  for  fifty  shekels  of  silver;'* 
and  in  i  Chron.  xxi:  25,  "So  David  gave  to  Oman  for 
the  place  six  hundred  shekels  of  gold  by  weight.'* 
Now,  here  is  a  contradiction,  say  the  critics.  But  is 
there?*  I  say  by  no  means.  In  the  first  statement, 
it  is  said  David  paid  fifty  shekels  of  silver  for  the 
thresliing-fioor  and  the  oxen — the  dome  of  the  rock, 
so-called:  it  is  all  under  the  dome  of  the  mosque  of 
Omar;  ain!  in  the  second  statement  it  is  said  he  paid 

7 


six  hundred  shekels  of  gold  for  **the  place" — that  is,  the 
whole  of  Mount  Moriah,  or,  at  the  least,  so  much  of  it 
as  was  used  by  Solomon  for  the  temple  and  temple 
area.     See  2  Chron.  iii:  i. 

In  I  Kings  vi:  i,  it  is  said,  "In  the  four  hundred 
and  eightieth  year  after  the  children  of  Israel  were 
come  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Solomon's  reign  over  Israel,  in  the  month  Zif,  which 
is  the  second  month,  that  he  began  to  build  the  house 
of  the  Lord."  Now,  according  to  the  generally  ac- 
cepted chronology,  there  is  an  error  here  of  from 
eighty-two  to  one  hundred  and  eleven  years.  But  I 
insist  that  no  devout  and  honest  critic  will  say  that  the 
error  is  in  the  record,  since  there  is  no  proof  of  it.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  there  are  twelve  kinds  of 
chronology.  Therefore,  in  all  probability  the  trouble 
lies  there.  Prof.  Sayce  has  recently  shown,  by  Egyp- 
tian chronology,  that  Solomon  began  to  build  the 
temple  958  B.  C.  This  agrees  exactly  with  the  time 
mentioned  in  i  Kings  vi:  i.  Another  possible  ex- 
planation is  this:  It  is  a  rule  among  Orthodox  Jews, 
even  to  this  day,  to  never  reckon  into  their  chronology 
the  time  they,  as  a  people,  were  in  captivity.  The 
Book  of  Judges  tells  us  that  during  the  period  of  the 
Judges,  the  children  of  Israel  were  in  captivity  one 
hundred  and  eleven  years,  the  exact  time  of  the  differ- 
ence between  the  statement  in  i  Kings  vi:  i,  and  the 
chronology  of  Archbishop  Usherj 

Once  again.  In  2  Kings  viii:  26,  it  is  said,  ''Two 
and  twenty  years  old  was  Ahaziah  when  he  began  to 
reign,  and  he  reigned  one  year  in  Jerusalem;"  and  in 
2  Chron.  xxii:  2,  it  is  said,  ''Forty  and  two  years  old 
was  Ahaziah  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  he  reigned 
one  year  in  Jerusalem."  In  looking  up  this  case,  the 
other  day.  with  a  scholarly  friend  of  mine,  we  found 

8 


that  2  Chron.  xxii:  2,  reads  forty-two  in  the  Hebrew; 
but  when  we  turned  to  the  Septuagint,  we  found  that 
it  read  twenty.  Therefore,  some  Hebrew  copyist 
must  have  written  four  for  two. 

No  one  at  all  acquainted  with  the  situation  will  deny 
that  there  are  difficulties,  and  some  that  appear  to  be 
insuperable :  l.nit  no  man  is  justified  in  saying  that  they 
are  insuperal^le.  Such  an  assumption  would  imply  a 
claim  of  infallibility  on  his  part. 

It  is  the  business  of  honest  higher  criticism  to  ascer- 
tain the  truth  respecting  all  apparent  discrepancies, 
contradictions  and  errors  in  the  authorized  and  revised 
texts;  but  I  submit  that  it  is  disreputable  to  honest 
scholarship  to  assume  that,  because  we  may  not  be 
able  to  vindicate  the  record,  therefore  it  never  can  be 
vindicated.  Within  the  past  ten  years,  very  many 
difficulties  have  been  solved — difficulties  that  appeared 
to  be  insuperable.  Why  may  not  other  difficulties  be 
solved?  The  historic  Church  has  always  stood  for 
the  integrity  and  authority  of  the  Bible.  The  proof 
that  the  Church  is  justified  in  this  contention  is  found 
in  its  wonderful  progress  and  achievements.  And  fur- 
ther proof  of  this  is  found  in  the  fact  that  as  we  make 
concessions  to  the  skeptics,  we  find  the  Church  is 
losing  its  power  to  uplift  its  members  to  higher  and 
more  Christlike  living,  and  to  win  the  lost  to  the 
Saviour  of  men. 

Professor  Flommel,  of  Munich,  who,  after  Prof. 
Sayce,  is  recognized  as  the  ablest  living  archaeologist, 
and  more  than  Prof.  Sayce  a  scholar  and  critic,  has 
recently  said,  with  regard  to  the  decipherments  he  has 
made  of  the  Tel-el-Amarna  tablets:  "They  brush  aside 
the  cobweb  theories  of  the  so-called  higher  critics  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  place  us  in  a  position  from  which 
no  future  attack  of  skeptical  criticism  can  hope  to  dis- 

9 


lodge  us.  The  theory  of  higher  criticism  must  col- 
lapse inevitably  and  irretrievably,  and  the  circumstance 
that  the  critics  still  persist  in  holding  their  views 
-against  indisputable  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  can 
only  regard  as  additional  proof  of  the  hopeless  bank- 
ruptcy of  their  theories." 

I  know  I  shall  be  told  that  Canon  Driver  and  Pro- 
lessors  Ladd,  Bacon,  Terry,  Briggs,  Mitchell,  Harper 
£t  al,  do  not  agree  with  the  extreme  views  of  seven- 
eighths  of  the  Dutch  and  German  critics.  But  logi- 
cally they  must.  Prof.  Kuenen  said  of  Doctor 
Driver:  "He  is  with  us,  but  lacks  the  courage  to  say 
plainly  what  he  really  believes."  And  I  am  convinced 
that  the  same  may  be  truthfully  said  of  the  rest  of  these 
gentlemen. 

It  is  true,  there  is  a  great  variety  of  opinions  among 
the  critics  concerning  methods  and  views  of  biblical 
and  textual  criticism.  The  late  Doctor  J.  W.  Men- 
denhali,  while  editor  of  the  Methodist  Review,  showed 
that  there  were  530  diflerent  theories  respecting  the 
Old  Testament,  and  208  of  the  New,  or  a  total  of  747 
ior  the  entire  book.  It  does  look  as  though  God  had 
."again  brought  confusion  to  those  who  would  build  to 
'3ieaven  by  their  own  wisdom  and  energy.  The  so- 
•called  higher  critics  are,  however,  pretty  well  agreed 
'Upon  ilhe  following  points :  First.  That  the  Pentateuch 
was  not  written  by  Moses.  Second.  That  the  Penta- 
tteuch  is  a  conglomerate,  gathered  from  many  sources, 
'anti  redacted  into  its  present  form  by  some  unknown 
person  in  post-Solomonian,  and  possibly  in  post-exile 
times.  Third.  That  not  a  little  of  this  record  is  folk- 
lore, mvths,  legends  and  traditions,  borrowed  from 
neighboring  nations;  and  is,  therefore,  in  no  sense 
the  Word  of  God.  Fourth.  That  much  of  the  Old 
Testament  record  is  historically,  chronologically  and 

10 


scientifically  untrue;  and  the  objections  to  it,  urged  by 
Voltaire,  Payne,  Eichhorn,  Astruc,  Spinoza,  Hobbs 
et  al,  are  brought  forward  by  Christian  professors  and 
ministers  to  prove  it  with  seemingly  great  satisfaction 
and  delight.  Fifth.  That  according  to  their  near- 
horizon  theory,  the  prophet  could  not  see  beyond  his 
own  times,  or  that  which  was  inevitable  to  them; 
therefore  there  are  no  Messianic  predictions.  Sixth. 
That  there  are  but  few,  if  any,  Davidic  Psalms. 
Seventh.  That  while  the  son  of  Amoz  may  have  written 
the  first  thirty-nine  chapters  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah, 
some  one  else  certainly  wrote  the  last  twenty-seven 
chapters.  Eighth.  That  the  book  of  Esther  is  ''his- 
torical fiction."  Ninth.  That  the  book  of  Job  is  a  ''fic- 
ticious drama,"  and  belongs  to  the  Cocma  or  Wisdom 
literature,  and  was  written  either  in  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon, or  in  post-exile  times.  Tenth.  That  but  few 
of  the  Old  Testament  books  w^ere  written  by  those 
whose  names  they  bear.  Eleventh.  That  the  book  of 
Daniel  was  not  only  not  written  by  Daniel,  but  by 
some  unknown  writer,  some  time  between  335  and  16S 
B.  C. 

Because  of  these  and  other  impeachments  of  the 
integrity  of  the  Biblical  record,  the  critics  and  all  who 
accept  their  views,  deny  the  authority  of  the  Bible, 
especially  the  Old  Testament,  and  properly  so,  if  their 
claims  are  true.  At  the  Vermont  Epworth  League 
State  Convention,  last  July,  in  Burlington,  Dr.  S.  P. 
Cadman,  of  New  York  City,  said,  in  an  address,  "T 
preach  to  men  of  brains.  They  challenge  what  I  say 
and  demand  my  authority.  Ts  it  the  Church?'  they 
ask.  I  say.  No!  'Is  it  the  Bible?'  I  say.  No!'' 
Turning  to  me,  he  said,  "Doctor  Munhall  says  'The 
Bible  is  authority.'  I  deny  it!  'Where  is  your  au- 
thority?' they  ask.     I    answer,  Jesus    Christ    is    my 

II 


authority."  But  I  submit,  if  these  brainy  people  to 
whom  our  friend  statedly  ministers,  have  any  grey 
matter,  they  will  continue  to  ask  questions  somewhat 
after  this  fashion:  Will  you  tell  us,  Dr.  Cadman,  about 
Jesus  Christ,  what  He  did  and  taught?  And  after 
Dr.  Cadman  performed  this  blessed  ministry,  they 
would  further  inquire:  Where  did  you  get  "your 
information?"  Dr.  Cadman  would  then  be  obliged 
to  answer,  "From  the  Bible."  Then  right  away  the) 
would  say:  "But  your  Bible  is  not  authoritative, 
according  to  your  own  declaration;  how,  then,  can  we 
believe  your  message  concerning  Jesus  Christ?"  Do 
you  not  see  the  impossibility  of  preaching  an  infallible 
Saviour  from  an  unauthoritative  record?  The  inevit- 
able logic  of  such  a  position  is  Unitarianism. 

The  Brooklyn  Times  says,  in  the  course  of  a 
thoughtful  editorial:  "The  weakness  of  every  attempt 
to  reconcile  faith  and  the  higher  criticism,  by  asserting 
that  while  the  Bible  is  not  in  itself  infallible,  it  contains 
infallible  truths,  is  that  it  throws  upon  every  individual 
the  personal  responsibility  for  sifting  the  truth  in  the 
book  from  the  error.  This  is  a  duty  that  cannot  be 
delegated  either  to  critic  or  to  spiritual  adviser.  The 
passages  of  the  Bible  are  not  bracketed  and  marked, 
'this  is  true,'  and  'this  is  not  true,'  and  there  is  no 
knowledge  taught  in  seminary  or  college  that  gives 
assurance  of  infallible  discrimination.  If  some  is  truth 
and  some  is  error,  and  there  is  no  authority  outside 
of  the  Bible  itself  to  guide  the  reader,  the  Church  may 
as  well  disband,  for  its  very  foundations  are  unsettled." 

I,  for  one,  accept  Jesus  as  infallible  authority  in  all 
matters  wherein  He  has  expressed  Himself.  Do  you? 
Well,  let  us  now  turn  to  the  record  and  ascertain  what 
He  thought  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  should  be 
remembered  that  the  Old  Testament  canon  was  com- 

12 


pletcd  long  before  Jesus  was  born.  Therefore  the 
Bible  He  believed  and  used  was  the  very  same  Old 
Testament  we  have  to-day.  He  never  once  criticised 
it,  or  questioned  its  authority;  but  always  appealed 
to  it  as  authoritative  with  confidence  and  reverence; 
which  is  in  strikmg  contrast  to  the  flippancy  with 
which  it  is  criticised,  and  the  irreverence  shown  it  by 
many  in  our  pulpits  and  educational  institutions  to- 
day. 

"He  taught  them  as  one  having  authority,  and  not 
as  their  scribes" — the  higher  critics  of  His  day.  These 
same  scribes  "made  void  the  Word  of  God,"  Matt,  xv: 
6.  They  pretended  to  believe  in  Moses  and  yet  re- 
jected Jesus  as  Messiah.  But  Jesus  said  unto  them: 
"For  if  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed 
Me;  for  he  wrote  of  Me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his 
writings  (and  how  can  one  if  they  are  not  authorita- 
tive?), how  shall  ye  believe  My  words?"  John  v:  46, 
47.  Jesus  here  utterly  refutes  two  postulates  of  the 
higher  criticism,  /.  e.,  that  writing  was  unknown  in 
the  time  of  Moses,  and,  there  are  no  Messianic  predic- 
tions; and,  also  explicitly  and  emphatically  declares 
that  it  is  not  possible  for  one  even  to  believe  in  Him, 
much  less  to  accept  Him  as  authority,  who  disbelieves 
the  writings  of  Moses.  He  said,  "Search  the  Scrip- 
tures, for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life,  and 
they  are  they  which  testify  of  Me,"  John  v:  39.  Jesus 
of  course,  referred  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
for  there  were  none  other  in  His  day.  "And  begin- 
ning from  Moses,  and  from  all  the  prophets,  he  in- 
terpreted to  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  con- 
cerning Himself.  .  .  .  And  He  said  unto  them,  These 
are  My  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was 
yet  with  you,  how  that  all  things  must  needs  be  ful- 
filled w^hich  are  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the 

13 


prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms  concerning  Me,"  Luke 
xxiv:  27,  44.  Since  Jesus  thus  recognized  the  author- 
ity of  the  entire  Old  Testament,  and  appealed  to  its 
predictive  testimony  concerning  Himself  in  vindica- 
tion of  His  claims,  can  any  one  consistently  and  truly 
accept  Him  as  authority  and  at  the  same  time  deny 
the  trustworthiness  and  authority  of  this  same  record? 

He  bore  frequent  and  unequivocal  testimony  to  the 
authoritative,  divine  character  of  all  parts  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, (a)  Concerning  the  Book  of  Genesis,  see 
Matt,  xix:  4-8;  xxiv:  37-39;  Mark  x:  4-9;  Luke  xi: 
49-51;  xvii:  26;  John  i:  45;  vii:  22,  23;  vili:  44,  56. 
(b)  Concerning  the  Book  of  Exodus,  see  Matt,  xii: 
3-5;  xxii:  31,  32;  Mark  vii:  9,  10;  x:  19;  John  vi:  31-49- 
(f)  Concerning  the  Book  of  Leviticus,  see  Mark  i:  44; 
John  vii:  22,  23.  (d)  Concerning  the  Book  of  Num- 
bers, see  John  iii:  14;  vi:  31-39.  (c)  Concerning  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  see  Matt,  iv:  4,  7,  10;  Mark 
x:  4-9.  (f)  Concerning  the  entire  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  and  therefore  also  for  the  Pentateuch,  see 
Matt,  v:  17;  xi:  13;  xxvi:  54;  Luke  xxiv:  27,  44;  John 
v:  39;  xix:  28. 

That  Christ  certainly  regarded  Moses  as  the  writer 
of  the  Pentateuch,  see  Matt,  viii:  4;  xix:  4-8;  Mark  x: 
4-9;  Luke  xvi:  29,  31;  xx:  37;  xxiv:  2y,  44;  John  v: 
46,  47;  vii:  22,  23. 

Jesus  quoted  from  twenty-one  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  nineteen  times  in  Matthew,  fifteen  times 
in  Mark,  twenty-five  times  in  Luke,  and  eleven  times 
in  John. 

He  anticipated  modern  higher  criticism;  and  by 
declaring  His  belief  in  the  historical  accuracy  of  many 
events  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  made  it  impos- 
sible for  any  one  to  deny  them  and  at  the  same  time 
claim  Him  consistently  as  authority.     The  following 

14 


instances  will  confirm  my  statement:  First.  Creatiort 
of  man,  Matt,  xix:  4.  Second.  Death  of  Abel,  Matt^ 
xxiii:  35;  j^iike  xi:  51.  Third.  Noah  and  the  flood, 
Matt.xxiv:  37-39;  Lukexvii:  26,27.  Fourth.  Abraham^ 
Matt,  i-  I- J 7;  xxii:  31,32;  John  viii:  33,  37,  53.  Fifth, 
Destruction  of  Sodom,  Luke  xvii:  28,  29,  32.  Sixth, 
The  burning  bush,  Matt,  xxii:  31,  32;  Mark  xii:  26; 
Luke  XX :  i.y.  Seventh.  Giving  the  manna,  John  vi:. 
31,  32.  Eighth.  The  law  concerning  leprosy,  Matt, 
viii:  4.  Ninth.  Cleansing  of  Naaman,  Luke  iv:  2^. 
Tenth.  The  brazen  serpent,  John  iii:  14.  Elevenths 
Jonah  and  the  marine  monster, Matt,  xii:  40.  Twelfths 
Elijah  commanding  fire  from  heaven,  Luke  ix:  54-56^ 

His  belief  in  the  integrity  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
of  the  unquestioning  sort — which  is  in  marked  con- 
trast to  the  conceit  of  those  gentlemen  who  are  wise 
above  what  is  written.  Hear  Him:  "Think  not  that  I 
came  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets:  I  came  not 
to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you^ 
Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  (jod,  the 
smallest  Hebrew  letter)  or  one  tittle  (the  marks  that 
give  the  Hebrew  letters  their  value)  shall  in  no  wise- 
pass  away  from  the  law,  till  all  things  be  accom- 
plished," Matt,  v:  17,  18.  And  because  the  Old  Tes- 
tament says:  "All  flesh  is  grass,  and  all  the  goodliness 
thereof  is  as  the  flower  of  the  field:  the  grass  withereth^ 
the  flower  fadeth:  because  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
bloweth  upon  it:  surely  the  people  is  grass.  The  grass- 
withereth,  the  flower  fadeth:  but  the  w^ord  of  our  God 
shall  stand  forever,"  L^aiah  xl:  6-8,  He  said,  ''The 
Scripture  cannot  be  broken,"  John  x:  35. 

y\nd  thus  we  see  how  constantly  our  Lord  appealed 
to  the  Old  Testament,  and  believed  it  to  be  authori- 
tative. T  am  quite  sure  no  one  will  go  astray  in  his 
teaching  who  follows  His  example  in  this  regard:  as 

15 


no  one  can  truly  believe  Him  to  be  authority  and  deny 
the  authority  of  the  record  He  so  much  honored. 

Peter  believed  in  the  integrity  and  authority  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  In  the  record  we  have 
of  his  sermon  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  we  find  little 
flse  than  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
said,  however,  "And  with  many  other  words  did  he 
testify  and  exhort;"  but  we  do  not  know  what  they 
were,  for  God  did  not  think  enough  of  Peter's  words 
to  preserve  them.  About  the  only  thing  in  the  sermon 
worth  preserving  were  the  quotations  he  made  from 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  But  it  was  a  wonder- 
ful sermon,  judging  by  results.  Three  thousand  souls 
saved  proves  to  a  demonstration  that  the  word 
preached  was  with  authority  and  power.  I  think  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  New  York  City  iz 
just  now  sadly  in  need  of  a  few  such  sermons. 

Stephen's  sermon  before  the  Council  was  made 
up  almost  entirely  of- quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Of  course,  he  did  not  have  a  great  number 
converted,  as  did  Peter,  for  his  audience  was  select 
and  small;  but  there  is  good  reason  for  believing  that 
this  sermon  was  the  means  of  Paul's  conversion,  and 
he  was  worth  to  the  Church  possibly  as  much  as 
Peter's  three  thousand. 

It  is  said  of  Apollos'  preaching,  that  "he  powerfully 
confuted  the  Jews,  and  that  publicly,  showing  by  the 
Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,"  Acts  xviii:  28. 
The  hardest  task  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  can  under- 
take is  to  convince  Hebrew  people  of  the  Christship 
of  Jesus.  But  Apollos  did  it,  ''powerfully"  and  "pub- 
licly," not  by  his  learning  and  eloquence,  but  by  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

"Paul  and  Barnabas  tarried  in  Antioch,  teaching 
and  preachmg  the  Word  of  the  Lord  (the  Old  Testa- 

t6 


ment  Scriptures),  with  many  others  also,"  Acts  xv:  35. 

Paul  said  to  Timothy,  "From  a  babe  thou  hast 
known  the  sacred  writings  (hiera  grainniata),  which 
^re  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation  through 
faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,"  2  Timothy  iii:  15. 
These  writings  that  the  critics  declare  are  untrust- 
worthy and  unauthoritative,  are  by  Paul  said  to  be 
"sacrcvl,"  and  "able  to  make  wise  imto  salvation." 

Luke  tells  us  that  the  superior  nobility  of  the 
Bereans  was  because  "they  received  the  Word  with  all 
readiness  of  mind,  and  examined  the  Scriptures  daily, 
whether  these  things  were  so,"  Acts  xvii:  11.  They 
recognized  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
made  their  appeals  to  it.  "Many  of  them  therefore 
believed;  also  of  the  Greek  women  of  honorable  estate, 
iind  of  men,  not  a  few." 

Jesus,  the  apostles  and  the  early  Christians  always 
recognized  the  authority  and  trustworthiness  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  preached  and  taught 
them  with  commanding  faith,  for  they  had  been  taught 
that  ''forever,  O  Lord,  Thy  Word  is  settled  in  heaven," 
Psalm  cxix:  89;  and  that  God  had  said:  "For  as  the 
rain  cometh  down,  and  the  snow  from  heaven,  and  re- 
turneth  not  thither,  but  w^atereth  the  earth,  and  maketh 
it  bring  forth  and  bud,  that  it  may  give  seed  to  the 
sower,  and  bread  to  the  eater:  so  shall  My  Word  be 
that  goeth  forth  out  of  My  mouth:  it  shall  not  return 
unto  Me  void,  but  it  shall  accomplish  that  which  I 
please,  and  it  shall  prosper  in  the  thing  wdiereto  I  sent 
it,"  Isaiah  Iv:  to,  it.  What  wonder  they  "turned  the 
world  upside  down." 

Let  us  see  to  what  ends  the  Bible  is  appointed — thr 
Bible,  and  not  men's  views  and  opinions  of  it: 

First.  By  it  we  are  saved,  James  i:  t8,  2t;  t  Peter 
i:  23;  Romans  x:  17;  2  Peter  i:  4. 

17 


Second.  By  it  we  are  nourished,  i  Peter  ii:  2;  Acts 
XX :  28-30. 

Third.  By  it  we  are  cleansed,  Psalm  cxix:  9;  Eph. 
v:  26;  John  xv:  3. 

Fourth.  By  it  we  are  kept.  Psalm  xvii:  4;  cxix:  11; 
John  xvii:  14,  15. 

Fifth.  By  it  we  are  developed,  John  xvii:  17;  Acts 
XX :  32;  I  Thess.  ii:  13. 

Sixth.  By  it  we  are  furnished  for  testimony  and 
service,  2  Tim.  ii:  15. 

Seventh.  By  it  we  overcome,  Eph.  vi:  17;  Jer.  xxiii: 
29;  Hebrews  iv:  12. 

T  submit,  is  it  possible,  or  even  thinkable,  that  all 
these  glorious  and  blessed  results,  and  more,  can  be 
secured  by  lost  and  dying  men  through  a  book  as 
faulty,  untruthful  and  unauthoritative  as  the  critics 
have  made  the  Bible  appear  to  be?  But  believing  "all 
Scripture  is  given  by  mspiration  of  God,"  we  can 
easily  understand  why  Paul  insisted  it  "is  profitable  for 
doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect, 
throughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works,"  2  Tim. 
iii:  16,  17;  and,  foreseeing  the  skepticism  and  unfaith 
of  these  very  days,  he  was  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
in  his  last  sublime  and  heroic  letter,  to  say,  "I  charge 
thee,  in  the  sight  o!  God,  and  of  Christ  Jesus,  who 
shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead,  and  by  His  ap- 
pearing and  His  kingdom,  preach  the  Word;  be  in- 
stant in  season,  out  of  season;  reprove,  rebuke,  exhort, 
with  all  long-sufTering  and  teaching.  For  the  time 
will  come  when  they  will  not  endure  the  sound  doc- 
trine; but,  having  itching  ears,  will  heap  to  themselves 
teachers  after  their  own  lusts;  and  will  turn  away  their 
ears  from  the  truth,  and  turn  aside  unto  fables,"  > 
Tim.  iv:  1-4. 

18 


What  further  shall  we  say  of  the  situation? 

I'irst.  ihe  higher  criticism  is  now  quite  the  fashion 
in  most  of  our  leading  educational  institutions,  and 
many  of  our  prominent  pulpits;  and  is  apparently 
viewed  with  favor  by  not  a  few  in  authority.  When 
I  was  a  boy,  the  objections  now  urged  by  the  critics 
in  the  Church  against  the  integrity  of  the  Word  of 
God,  were  used  by  the  infidels  in  their  assaults  upon 
the  religion  of  Jesus.  These  assaults  were  vigorously 
and  successfully  repelled,  and  the  integrity  of  the  old 
book  vindicated;  and  God  gloriously  honored  His 
people  for  their  fidelity  to  truth;  for  those  were  the 
brightest  and  most  prosperous  days  in  the  history  of 
Methodism. 

A  friend  of  mine  said  to  the  man  who  is  at  the 
head  of  one  of  our  leading  educational  institutions, 
not  five  hundred  miles  from  here,  "Doctor,  the  teach- 
ings of  the  higher  critics  is  just  what  the  infidels  for- 
merly urged  against  the  Bible."  "Yes,  I  know;  but 
what  if  the  infidels  were  right?"  he  answered.  My 
friend  said,  "But  they  were  not."  The  doctor  replied, 
"But  they  were." 

It  is  said  some  one  asked  Mr.  Ingersoll  recently. 
"Why  do  you  not  give  your  lecture  against  the  Bible 
any  more?"  He  replied,  "The  professors  and  preach- 
ers are  doing  that  work  so  much  better  than  I  pos- 
sibly can,  and  their  influence  is  so  much  greater." 

I  do  know  that,  in  two  of  our  theological  schools, 
the  Old  Testament  professors  are  giving  their  students 
all  the  objections  against  the  integrity  of  the  record, 
and  making  no  attempt  whatever  to  answer  these  ob- 
jections. And  these  students  are  going  out  to  fill  our 
pulpits,  with  little  or  no  knowledge  of  the  Bible ;  their 
minds  filled  with  objections  to  the  book  the  Church 
commissions  them  to  preach.     Can  any  one  reason- 

19 


ably  expect  spiritual  results  from  tne  ministry  of  such 
men  ?  I  know  of  one  of  these  young  men,  who,  within 
four  years  of  his  graduation,  leit  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  became  pastor  of  a  Congregational 
Church,  then  pastor  of  a  Unitarian  Church,  and  then 
a  blatant  infidel,  all  in  the  same  town. 

A  wealthy  member  of  our  Church,  a  delegate  to  the 
last  General  Conference,  told  me,  "I  sent  my  oldest 
son  to  a  Methodist  educational  institution  not  three 
hundred  miles  from  New  York  City.  Before  he  left 
home  he  was  considered  by  all  who  knew  him  to  be 
a  model  Christian  young  man.  He  would  conduct 
'fatnily  worship,'  lead  the  church  prayer  meeting;  was 
a  teacher  in  the  Sunday  school,  and  would  speak  and 
exhort  in  the  meetings  of  the  church.  While  at  school 
he  came  under  the  influence  of  a  certain  professor, 
who  is  a  higher  critic.  He  came  home  an  infidel, 
and  has  not  once  been  inside  a  church  since."  When 
the  father  told  me  this,  he  burst  into  tears  and  said, 
"Brother  Munhall,  I  would  a  thousand  times  rather 
my  boy  had  lived  all  his  days  in  ignorance,  than  to 
have  had  his  faith  thus  shipwrecked."  What  moral 
right  has  any  institution  of  our  Church  to  employ  and 
support  such  men  in  their  faculties?  These  institu- 
tions were  founded  and  endowed  at  great  sacrifice  by 
the  fathers,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  our  young  people 
scholastic  culture  in  harmony  with  vital  Christianity, 
as  taught  in  the  Word  of  God;  and  as  a  protest  against 
the  skepticism  and  rationalism  of  the  secular  schools 
and  universities.  For  any  one  of  them  now  to  employ 
a  teacher  who  will  promulgate  infidel  and  rationalistic 
objections  to  the  Bible  is  a  gross  betrayal  of  one  of 
the  most  sacred  trusts  of  the  Church.  I  speak  as  a 
loyal  member  and  minister  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

20 


Second.  Spiritual  paralysis  is  an  inevitable  result  of 
teaching  and  preaching  higher  criticism.  The  un- 
spiritual  condition  of  the  Church  in  the  linds  of  the 
Reformation  is  conclusive  proof  of  this  statement. 
The  late  Prof.  Delitzsch,  the  greatest  Hebraist  of  the 
centurv,  notwithstanding:  in  his  later  life  he  made  con- 
cessions  to  the  higher  critics,  denounced  higher  criti- 
cism as  "I>ible-hating,  history  manufacturing  science;" 
and  even  Hitzig,  an  ultra-higher  critic,  characterized 
this  criticism  as  "an  abomination  of  desolation." 
Prof.  Sayce  recently  said,  ''Higher  criticism  saves  no 
souls,  and  heals  no  bodies."  An  unevangelical  church 
soon  becomes  unevangelistic;  and  an  unevangelistic 
church  must  of  necessity  experience  spiritual  inanition. 
How  can  it  be  otherwise?  The  higher  critic  cannot 
consistently  preach  what  the  Bible  says  about  inspira- 
tion, hell,  repentance,  regeneration,  atonement,  witness 
of  the  Spirit,  sanctification,  priesthood  and  advocacy 
of  our  Lord,  resurrection,  the  kingdom,  hope  and  the 
glory;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  does  not.  God  has 
ordained  His  Word  to  the  salvation  and  spiritual  en- 
richment of  men,  and  nothing  else  can  do  the  business. 
How  can  the  work  be  done  by  men  who  discredit  that 
Word  and  deny  its  authority? 

The  unspiritual  condition  of  our  churches  is  alarm- 
ing. Year  before  last,  24,254  Methodist  Episcopal 
churches  in  the  country  showed  a  net  increase  to  their 
membership  of  14,337 — ^r  a  little  more  than  half  a 
member  per  church.  The  last  year's  reports  that  are 
at  hand  show^  a  large  decrease  in  the  membership  of 
these  churches.  It  is  said  the  pastors  have  been 
pruning  their  lists.  Doubtless  this  will  explain  in 
part  the  startling  situation.  It  is  doubtless  true  that 
many  who  have  been  cut  oflf  would  have  been  saved 
to  the  Church  had  the  right  kind  of  spiritual  condi^ 

21 


lions  existed.  There  are,  beside,  many  reasons  alleged 
explanatory  of  the  situation;  but  they  do  not  wholly 
explain.  I'here  is  an  appalling  unspiritual  condition 
in  Methodism.  There  is  no  use  trying  to  disguise  it. 
The  contributions  made  to  the  missionary  cause  tells 
the  story,  if  the  membership  roll  does  not.  Revivals 
the  past  two  years  have  been  the  exception — yes,  the 
past  five.  The  doctrine  of  a  sanctified  life  is  in  con- 
tempt among  us.  Worldliness  is  alarmingly  on  the 
increase.  Bishop  Foster  has  said:  "The  Church  of 
God  is  to-day  courting  the  world.  Its  members,  by 
their  unchristian  lives,  are  bringing  it  down  to  the 
level  of  the  ungodly.''  Bishop  Fowler  says:  "The 
Church  itself  has  degenerated  into  a  kind  of  social 
club."  The  theatre,  race-track  and  dance-halls  have 
been  patronized  the  past  years  as  never  before.  In 
many  parts  of  the  country,  the  Sabbath  is  little 
better  respected  and  observed  than  in  France.  Self- 
ishness, formality  and  ritualism  are  likewise  much  in 
evidence.  Many  of  our  leading  educational  institu- 
tions are  permeated  with  skepticism  and  rationalism, 
and  we  have  heard  of  but  few  revivals  in  them  during 
the  past  five  years.  Many  of  our  people  and  not  a 
few  of  our  pastors  do  not  believe  in  revivals,  because 
they  do  not  believe  the  doctrines  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  very 
air  seems  to  vibrate  with  skepticism  and  contempt  for 
Bible  truth.  Agnosticism,  rationalism,  theosophy, 
Christian  science,  spiritualism  and  many  other  delu- 
sions are  alarmingly  upon  the  increase,  and  becoming 
immensely  popular.  And  even  this  is  not  all.  In- 
temperance, licentiousness,  infidelity  and  crime,  are 
increasing  with  rapid  strides;  and  enmity  against  the 
Church  and  hatred  of  it  is  becoming  more  intense  and 
bitter.  The  following  is  a  clipping  from  the  Philadel- 
phia Ledger: 

22 


Concord,  N.  H.,  April  6th. — In  announcing  Thurs- 
day.. April  13th,  as  l^ast  Day  in  this  State,  Oovernor 
Rollins  said:  "The  decline  of  the  Christian  religion, 
particularly  in  our  rural  communities,  is  a  marked 
ieature  of  our  times,  and  steps  should  be  taken  to 
remedy  it.  There  are  towns  vvlieie  no  churcli  bell 
sends  forth  its  solemn  call  from  January  to  January; 
there  are  villages  where  ciiildren  grow  to  manhood 
unchristened;  there  are  communities  where  the  dead 
are  laid  away  without  the  benison  of  the  name  of  Christ 
and  where  marriages  arc  solemnized  only  by  justices  of 
the  peace." 

What  is  the  real  cause  of  all  this?  For  myself,  and 
I  have  had  unusually  good  opportunities  for  studying 
the  case,  and  have  given  much  time  and  careful 
thought  to  it,  I  say,  it  is  chiefly  because  of  the  dis- 
honor put  upon  God's  holy  Word  by  the  higher  critics. 
If  the  Bible  was  believed  and  preached  as  the  fathers 
believed  and  preaclied  it,  the  Church  would  be  full 
of  life  and  power,  as  it  was  in  their  day.  Of  this  I 
have  no  doubt. 

Bishop  Kyle  says:  "And  what  is  the  source  of  all 
this  mischief?  I  believe  it  is  the  result  of  the  constant 
attacks  made  by  the  learned  critics  on  the  inspiration 
of  the  Old  Testament,  producing  a  general  feeling  of 
skepticism  about  the  New  among  the  large  mass  of 
people  who  know  nothing  of  any  criticism,  but  are 
glad  of  some  excuse  for  doubting  the  truth  of  the 
whole  Bible.  The  consequence  is  a  general  shakincss 
in  men's  minds  about  Bible  religion  altogether.  I 
firmly  believe  that  many  of  our  modern  critics  mean 
no  harm,  but  actually  think  they  are  doing  God  ser- 
vice. But  I  believe  with  equal  firmness  that  one  result 
of  this  higher  criticism  is  that  many  people  in  this  day 
never  read  their  Bibles  at  all,  or  at  any  rate  read  less 
than  they  used  to." 

23 


Third.  The  reaction  has  set  in.  There  are  rehgious 
fads.  Paris  sets  the  fashion  in  dress  for  the  ladies. 
Germany  and  Holland  set  the  fashions  theologically 
for  the  preachers  and  teachers  who  are  vain  in  their 
own  conceits,  and  want  to  be  considered  progressive 
and  up  to  date.  These  accept  any  teaching  that  bears 
the  stamp  of  Germany  and  Holland.  Prof.  Christlieb 
once  asked  a  friend  of  mine,  "Why  do  the  English 
and  Americans  so  quickly  gather  the  theological  rub- 
bish we  Germans  throw  away?"  But  the  fashions 
change. 

Professor  Tuthardt  can  speak  from  experience  on 
this  subject.     For  more  than  forty  years  he  has  been 
professor    of    theology    at    Leipsic,  and  an  effective 
leader  among  the  evangelical  scholars  of  Germany. 
He  has  combatted  the  rationalistic  theories  that  were 
so  popular  and  threatening  a  generation  ago,  and  he 
has  lived  to  see  them  dead  and  buried.     Therefore 
he  has  no  anxiety  because  of  the  new  storms  that 
have  arisen.     In  a  recent  article  he  utters  these  en- 
couraging words:  "We  have  had  too  many  experiences 
in  this  respect,  have  seen  too  many  hypotheses  come 
and  go.     Who    knows    what    gravediggers    already 
stand  at  the  door?     We  older  ones  had  experience  in 
Baur's  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  and  some  of 
us  took  an  active  part  in  opposing  it.     Where  is  that 
school  now?     What  a  stir  D.  F.  Strauss  made  in  his 
day !     All  who  understand  the  matter  now  have  aban^ 
doned  the  theory  that  the  life  of  Jesus  consists  of 
myths.     How  many  in  Germany,   even  in  scientific 
circles,  compromised    themselves    by    their    attitude 
towards  Renan's  'Life  of  Jesus!'     Who  ever  speaks 
seriously  of  this  French  romance  now?" 

The  critics  who  keep  informed  as  to  the  real  situa- 
tion are  already  hedging.     Prof.  Harnack,  of  Berlin, 

24 


two  years  ago  issued  a  volume  on  "The  Chronology  of 
the  New  Testament,"  in  which  he  made  very  great 
concessions  to  the  conservative  school;  which  has  in- 
fluenced many  of  the  critics  to  abandon  not  a  few  of 
their  extreme  views,  and  caused  the  conservatives  to 
push  the  battle  with  vigor.  Such  men  as  Prof. 
Julicher,  of  Marburg;  Adolph  Zahn,  of  Stuttgart; 
Edouard  Rupprecht,  of  Bavaria;  Hoedemaker,  of 
Amsterdam;  Stosch,  of  Berlin;  Douglass,  of  Glasgow; 
Dr.  Valpy  French ;  Prof.  Green,  of  Princeton ;  Osgood, 
of  Rochester,  and  a  host  of  others  on  both  sides  of 
the  sea,  have  done  magnificent  service  in  behalf  of  the 
old  faith.  The  marvellous  discoveries  of  archaeology 
have  brought  the  antiquarians  all  into  line  with  the 
splendid  services  of  these  scholars,  and  the  reaction 
is  carrying  everything  before  it.  I  do  not  doubt  but 
that  in  less  than  ten  years  the  higher  critics  of  the  Old 
Testament  will  be  no  more  respected  than  the  Tubingen 
school  now. 

Fourth.  What  shall  \\e  do?  We  have  built  fine 
churches.  We  have  a  learned  and  eloquent  ministry. 
We  have  big  organs  and  fine  music.  Some  of  our 
pulpits  have  been  turned  into  lecture  platforms.  We 
have  turned  some  of  our  church  buildings  into  lunch 
counters  and  concert  halls.  We  have  had  magic  lan- 
terns, broom  drills  and  the  Cecillian  Troubadores.  We 
have  organized  leagues,  brotherhoods,  circles  and 
societies  until  it  would  puzzle  a  Philadelphia  lawyer 
to  keep  track  of  them.  And  yet,  in  spite  of  it  all,  the 
situation  has  grown  steadily  worse.  It  is  thought 
by  some  that  if  we  extend  the  time  limit,  or  abolish 
it  altogether,  or  admit  the  laymen  to  equal  represen- 
tation to  the  General  Conference,  and  the  women,  too; 
or  abolish  tlie  presiding  eldership;  or  abrogate  the  rule 
for1)idding  dancing,  card-playing  and  theatre-going, 

25 


etc.,  etc.,  that  the  tide  will  turn.  But  all  of  these  will 
not  suffice.  God's  Holy  Spirit  has  been  grieved  by 
the  dishonor  that  has  been  put  upon  His  holy 
Word.  We  have  got  to  humble  ourselves  before  God, 
got  to  get  down  low  in  the  dust  before  Him  and  con- 
fess our  sins.  If  we  will  do  this,  and  give  the  Bible 
the  place  it  should  have  in  our  ministry;  if  we  will 
believe  the  Bible,  live  the  Bible  and  preach  the  Bible, 
in  humble  dependence  upon  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  will  move  forward  to 
grander  victories  than  she  has  ever  known.  If  we 
will  not  do  this,  and  I  fear  we  will  not,  God  will  cer- 
tainly remove  our  candlestick  out  of  its  place. 

I  have  lately  been  studying  the  situation  in  England 
and  France  one  hundred  and  twenty  to  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years  ago.  The  deists,  under  the  leadership 
of  Lord  Bolingbroke  and  Voltaire,  made  a  tremendous 
light  against  the  integrity  of  the  Bible,  particularly  the 
Old  Testament,  and  seemed  to  carry  everything  before 
them.  They  used  the  very  same  objections  to  the 
book  as  the  modern  higher  critic.  Certain  learned 
Jewish  rabbis  wrote  and  published  "Letters  to  \'ol- 
taire,"  copies  of  which  I  have  in  my  possession, 
whereby  all  of  Voltaire's  criticisms  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment were  utterly  refuted;  but  their  influence  was  so 
small,  and  Voltaire's  so  very  great,  that  France  fol- 
lowed the  brilliant  skeptic,  and  the  Bible  was  disbe- 
lieved, disobeyed  and  rejected.  The  French  Revolu- 
tion and  the  Reign  of  Terror  were  the  natural  and 
inevitable  result.  It  looked  for  a  time  as  though  noth- 
ing could  possibly  save  England  from  the  same  fate. 
The  objections  raised  against  the  Bible  were  believed 
by  many  in  the  Church.  The  doctrines  of  the  book 
were  not  often  preached  and  little  believed.  Worldli- 
ness,  formalitv,  selfishness  and  ritualism  very  gener- 

26 


ally  prevailed,  and  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Church  waa 
at  a  very  low  ebb.  The  educational  institutions  were 
permeated  by  the  prevailing  skepticism,  and  it  looked 
as  though  the  old  book  and  faith  were  done  for.  But 
a  few  young  men,  students  at  Oxford,  with  the  love 
of  God  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghosts 
burdened  in  heart  and  soul  because  of  the  condition 
of  affairs,  wisely  went  to  God  with  their  burden  and 
besought  His  help.  You  know  the  result.  The 
critics  and  infidels  were  confounded,  for  old  England 
was  rocked,  as  in  earthquake  throes,  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  saved  to  Protestantism. 

Such  an  awakening  is  needed  in  Methodism  to-day. 
And  an  awakening  will  come.  "The  Word  of  our 
God  shall  stand  forever,"  and  ''the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against"  the  Church.  If  we,  as  a  Church,, 
will  not  repent  of  our  sins  and  put  away  our  idols, 
and  submit  wholly  to  Him,  to  be  conformable  to  His 
revealed  will,  He  will  raise  up  some  one,  as  He  raised 
up  John  Wesley,  as  a  protest  against  the  unspiritual 
condition  of  the  Church,  and  will  use  him  to  confound 
skeptics,  and  the  bringing  in  of  right  conditions,  and 
the  salvation  of  the  lost. 

I  spent  a  little  time  in  London  some  years  ago,  with 
a  Church  of  England  friend  of  mine.  I  had  noticed 
how  the  Church  of  England  kept  in  touch  with  the 
Salvation  Army,  and  seemingly  was  fostering  their 
work.  I  asked  my  friend  for  an  explanation.  He 
said:  "The  Church  of  England  antagonized  the  work 
of  John  Wesley,  and  thereby  drove  it  from  them. 
That  work  and  movement  should  have  been  encour- 
aged and  kept  within  the  Church.  The  Church  au- 
thorities saw  their  mistake  when  it  was  too  late.  They 
will  never  make  a  similar  mistake."  The  awakening 
is  coming.     Hear  it,  ye  missionary  secretaries,  and  be 

27 


of  good  cheer!  Hear,  it,  ye  pastors  who  beheve  the 
Bible  is  God's  holy  Word,  and  have  preached  it  faith- 
fully! Hear  it,  ye  who  deny  its  integrity  and  author- 
ity, and  repent  of  your  folly  before  it  is  too  late!  Hear 
it,  ye  editors,  and  break  your  silence  before  you  are 
put  to  shame  and  confusion.  It  is  coming.  I  hear 
"the  sound  of  a  going  in  the  tops  of  the  mulberry 
trees."  But  it  must  come  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
answer  to  prayer,  through  the  Word  of  God,  which 
is  the  only  way  by  which  we  can  make  known  the 
Christ  who  is  ''the  Power  of  God  and  the  Wisdom  of 
God"  unto  salvation. 

The  inspired  Psalmist  said:  ''Thou  hast  magni- 
fied Thy  Word  above  all  Thy  name."  We  see  this 
m  its  literary  and  poetic  beauty;  in  its  historic, 
scientific,  and  biographical  accuracy;  in  its  ethical 
and  philosophical  profundity;  in  its  indestructible- 
ness  and  elevating  and  transforming  power;  and  in 
its  prophetic  and  eschatological  uniqueness.  The 
written  Word  tells  of  the  living  Word — tells  of 
Him  who  created  all  things;  who  is  the  "Light  of 
the  world"  and  Saviour  of  men.  God  gave  Him 
"the  name  which  is  above  every  name."  The  great- 
ness and  glory  of  this  name  shall  be  recognized  and 
acknowledged  by  all  created  intelligences,  in  heaven, 
in  earth,  and  under  the  earth;  and,  at  last,  "every 
tongue  shall  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father."  The  names  of  rulers, 
warriors,  and  statesmen;  of  philosophers,  scien- 
tists, and  theologians;  of  critics,  skeptics,  and  infi- 
dels, great,  noble,  and  illustrious  in  the  sight  and 
estimation  of  men,  will  pale  as  the  morning  star 
before  the  rising  sun,  before  the  name  of  Jesus.  And 
vet  God  has  magnified  His  Word,  by  which  He  made 
the   heavens,   and   which   "endureth   forever,"   above 

28 


this  greatest  and  most  glorious  of  names.  Surely 
that  which  God  has  so  exalted  and  honored  we  do  well 
and  wisely  to  love,  cherish  and  obey.  "For  we  can 
do  nothing  against  the  truth,  but  for  the  truth,"  2  Cor. 
xiii:  8. 


EATON  &   MAINS,  Agents, 
\50  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City, 

Publish  all  of  Dr.  Munhall's  Works. 

AN  ri-HIGHER  CRITICISM,  Crown  8vo,  358  pp.  Price,  $1.50 
HIGHEST     CRITICS    vs.    HIGHER     CRITICS, 

doth,  249  pp 1.00 

THE      LORDS      RETURN      AND      KINDRED 

TRUTHS,  cloth,  217  pp 1.00 

EURNJ SUING  FOR  WORKERS,  leather,  118  pp. 

Pocket  Edition 25 

Nearly  100,000  of  these  last  have  been  sold. 

It  is  bound  in  full  flexible  leather  binding,  has  118  pages,  can 
be  carried  in  the  pocket  without  inconvenience,  and  only  25 
tents  per  cojiy. 

If  our  is  as  keel  to  lead  a  meeting,  no  matter  wnat  may  be  the 
topic,  doctrinally,  having  this  booklet,  he  has  from  three  to 
eight  passages  of  Scripture  at  hand  bearing  directly  upon  the 
subiect. 

There  is  an  arrangement  of  texts  for  more  than  two  hundred 
Bible  readings. 

There  are  twelve  suggestions  as  to  how  to  do  personal  Chris- 
tian work;  and  Scripture  texts  so  arranged  that  one  can  in- 
stantly give  (4od"s  answer  for  every  difficulty  in  the  way  of  an 
lionest  inquirer  after  salvation. 

The  key  w  ords  or  thoughts  of  the  different  books  of  the  Bible 
are  also  given,  in  order  to  help  those  who  study  the  Bible  book 
at  a  time. 

A  prominent  business  man  said  of  it:  "I  would  not  take  five 
hundred  dollars  for  the  copy  I  have  if  I  could  not  get  another." 

'Must  the  book  to  carry  in  the  pocket,  giving  at  a  bird's-eye 
glance  the  passages  of  Scripture  needed  to  meet  an  almost  end- 
less series  of  questions,  objections,  etc.,  which  one  constivntly 
hears." — liooJc  li€V(trd,  New  York. 

29 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

in^    Syracuse,  N.    Y. 
Stockton,  Calif. 


''^ 


mitn 


*"!■  .   <    •  i\   ." 


•^% 


BS480.M964 

The  integrity  and  authority  of  the  Bible 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00052  2872 


